User talk:Chris-martin/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Redirects to Headings

FYI, Setting redirects to jump straight to a specific heading on the target page unfortunately doesn't actually work... so don't waste too much time setting those up. ;-) Maelwys 22:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well... perhaps believing you would be the more efficient thing to do, but I'm far too pedantic to stop now. ~ Booyabazooka 22:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Stick Arena

Thanks for your help on Stick Arena. The article was originally listed for NPOV cleanup and I did a lot of work on it to organize and clean it up, added tables, etc. As you can see, the article is a frequent target for kiddies adding nonsense and vandalism, and I quickly got tired of cleaning it up. Do you think it is worth putting on the list of frequently-vandalized articles? ~ Aguerriero

I don't know... it doesn't seem like too bad a vandalism subject; and it's not really an important article, so I'd be hesitant to sic the vandal-patrol on it. I think I'll just be keeping my eye on it... ~ Booyabazooka 07:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Cornovil a.k.a. Cornovii

Consider withdrawing yr nomination. This was a typo. (I fixed page format above as well.) Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You got it. Good find. ~ Booyabazooka 06:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Chris-martin/Archive 3! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. ☆TBC☆ 17:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Lakes-to-Sea Highway

When you stub sort, please leave the stub template after the categories, so the stub category is last. Thanks. --SPUI (T - C) 22:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I quote Wikipedia:Stub: "Because the stub identification is rendered on an article page prior to hardcoded items like categories and inter-Wiki language links, the template is usually placed at the end of the article proper, after the External links section if it exists, but before categories or inter-Wiki links." It makes a lot more sense to me to place the stub template before the categories, because it is a visible part of the article; plus, I rarely have ever seen a stub notice done your way. ~ Booyabazooka 23:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ack - how did that happen? The stub category should be last, becasue no one cares what type of stub it is. --SPUI (T - C) 23:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Where can we go to get a community consensus on this? I still don't agree with you. ~ Booyabazooka 23:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a bit of discussion - nothing conclusive - at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Archive3#Where do the stubs go? and Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Querying category/stub order apparently used by AWB as default. --SPUI (T - C) 00:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Comb sort

Yes, comb sort is a comparison sort. It compares the values to be sorted, and sorts them accordingly. A non-comparison sort uses keys, not the values, to sort. I'm not sure if comb sort belongs in the comparison sort article (as it only lists well-known ones (and comb sort isn't)), but you could mention that it is in its own article. DevastatorIIC 09:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I asked not with the intention of putting it in the Comparison sort article, but for putting it in the category. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 09:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

One man's spam...

Please read WP:EL. Basically, Wikipedia is not a link farm. Links should only be added if they have valuable information that does not belong in the article itself and if they are not trying to sell something. If the information in the link does belong it the article, it should be re-written (to avoid copyright issues) and added to the article. In general, articles should have very few links, because very few links fit these criteria (and yes, that means we have a lot of spam in a lot of articles).

The idea is that we want our articles to be the best possible source of information on a topic, not just a short article followed by a long list of links to other articles-- our readers might as well just google "orthotics" and read the first dozen sites if we are going to allow long external link lists. I have removed the link again. Please let me know if you want to discus this further.

Happy editing! -- Mwanner | Talk 20:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: "...a healthy supply of links is useful for editors in research and fact-checking, in order to assist in article growth. Such linking doesn't need to be part of the article itself, perhaps, but more of a meta tool. Do you think these sorts of links could have a place at the top of a talk page, instead, or does the difficultly of discerning spam from legitimate resources make it not worth the effort?"

I don't know... it's definitely not a clear cut issue. I've been doing a lot of spam fighting lately, so I'm probably oversensitive to it. My feeling in this case was that the article was already pretty comprehensive, and there were already four links to material from the Hospital for Special Surgery, one of the best hospitals in the world for joint injury. I felt the extra link was one too many (plus the guy who added it looks like a classic spammer-- all External links edits).

In cases where our article is deficient, and if I don't have time or expertise to try to incorporate material in the ext links into the article text directly, I tend to be a little more generous-- hoping maybe someone else will come along and make the excess links unnecessary later on.

As for the meta tool question, I'm inclined to think that the problem generally these days is too much info, not too little. Of course, if an ext link provided a substantial amount of info used in the article, it should be in a ==Sources== section, and that would help later editors fact-check. Otherwise, it might be better if fact-checkers did their own research so they don't just automatically find confirmation of earlier editors' facts.

So its a tough call every time. I do think, though, that we have way too many external links in general, and I know we have a lot of true spammers working our articles. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 21:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Can a sysop copy edit history for an article split?

This section was copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) for my own reference ~ Booya ^Bazooka 04:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking to split the Hip fracture article in half, but I don't know how to preserve the edit history for the article created by the split. Is it possible for a sysop to make a copy of the whole edit history, so that the newly-created split article will have a copy too? ~ Booyabazooka 00:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

How is menitioning the split in the edit summaries (with page names), as suggested at Wikipedia:How to break up a page, not sufficiient? -- Rick Block (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, I suppose it does suffice. But you really shouldn't have to trek through (potentially multiple) articles to gather the full edit history of a text, ideally... isn't it supposed to all be right there with the article? It amounts to a cut-and-paste move, and there are reasons against this. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 16:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the significant difference is that with a move the "move from" article is much more likely to be deleted. Directly answering your original question, it is possible to copy the history (how it's done is you move the article to the new name, delete the redirect that's left, and then restore the original) - the question is whether it's worth doing this whenever an article splits (and I think the current consensus is the answer is no). -- Rick Block (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Listing a page for deletion a second time

This section was copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) for my own reference ~ Booya ^Bazooka 04:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Insertion sort implementations went through one AfD, and the result was "transwiki and delete." Well, I've done the transwikification, and now it needs to be deleted. The afd template links to the old afd discussion, though. How does one re-list an afd? ~ Booya ^Bazooka 04:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That's actually two different things. Have a look at the speedy deletion page to see you don't have to re-list it, it's under "Article 5". And aren't there instruction at the bottom of the AfD page for when you do need to relist? - brenneman ^{L} 04:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No I see that's been taken out. What I do is first edit the template (the one pointing to the old afd) by copy/pasting the old afd name with "Second nomination" or something like that at the end. Then once you save (or preview) you'll get a red link and you simply follow that just as normal. Just remember to put the name of the new afd disussion on the main afd page, not the old one. Here is an example of someone doing something similar. - brenneman ^{L} 04:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Desknote not a portmanteau?

Hey Booyabazooka, I wanted to ask you about your recent edit to desktop replacement computer, where you said that desknote is a combination of desktop and notebook but is not a portmanteau. Could you tell me why not? Is it because it's the beginnings of both words, rather than the beginning of one and the end of another? I don't think that's actually a requirement for a portmanteau. TomTheHand 14:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed a few articles from the Portmanteaus category. Desknote is close, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't qualify. A portmanteau is a "blend" of words; from what I've seen, it seems to mean that the words have to overlap in some clever way. The resulting combination usually contains a syllable that was common to both of the words. Desknote is just "desk" and "note"; there isn't really any blend there. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 19:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand. It was actually my first time using the word "portmanteau," so I was eager to figure out what I did wrong ;-) TomTheHand 22:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Computer science

Hi! Just noticed that you have signed on as a participant in WikiProject Computer science, and wanted to welcome you to the project. I'd suggest that you stop by the project talk page, but I see you've already done that :-) --Allan McInnes (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

SVG

Thanks for the new SVG in the WPCS template - looks good! --Allan McInnes (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

O RLY?

Hi, Template:O RLY? has been proposed for deletion at Templates for deletion. Could you please use "fact", "citation needed", or "dubious" instead? Thank you. --KJ 07:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Finding Nemo

Hi, I'm glad that you're doing ok after surgery. Thanks for cleaning the article Finding Nemo. I appreciate the time and effort you took. I gotta go. Cheers --Starionwolf 19:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Spam blacklist for TinyURL

This section was copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) for my own reference

In my recent edit of TinyURL, I had to cripple all of the relevant external links to TinyURL.com because the site has been put on the spam blacklist. Is there any way around this? Or, where do I need to go to bitch at... er... kindly communicate with... MediaWiki developers to get something changed? I understand the need for this kind of filtering, but the blacklist is functioning rather overzealously in this case. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 00:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Just put them within <nowiki> tags. All URL shortening services are blocked by the Spam blacklist, because they are often used to work around the blacklist, and there are no legitimate uses (you can always use the longer URL; the exception seems to be the TinyURL article itself, where you can use nowiki). See also the discussion a few days ago at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive#Spam blocking tinyurl.com. --cesarb 01:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You Shouldn't Just Move Stuff

I'm talking in regards to your move of the article Cockeyed.com to Cockeyed. I'm pretty sure that the website's title is Cockeyed.com--that's what it says in the Title Bar of the website as well as at the very top of the page. By comparison, the Wikipedia article is correct in having the title Wikipedia, as the website's title does not have a .com at the end. Before making moves, you should post the idea on the talk page of the article and see what others think. --Brandon Dilbeck 20:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It's very common for websites to refer to themselves by their domain names, to encourage people to remember the domain name. That doesn't mean that's how Wikipedia has to refer to them, however. I've moved more than a few articles away from domain name titles, some with sysop assistance, for naming consistency — we can't have half of our website articles ending in .com just because the website ops want people to know the address to their sites. If you want to put this issue up for debate somewhere (perhaps a websites section on Wikipedia:Naming conventions?), feel free, but it doesn't make sense to wait for a concensus on every single page move, because there are just too many of them. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 21:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Quotation marks

Hi. Have you seen Wikipedia:Style_guide#Quotation_marks ? Do you disagree with this? Morwen - Talk 20:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well... damn. No, I had not read this, apologies. I very much do disagree, but I shall abide. Thanks for preventing me from continuing to make a fool of myself. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 20:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Don't repeat yourself

Good sentiment you have with your non-repetition Wikipedia initiative, but I don't think it belongs in a mainspace article. Check out my note on the discussion page... ~ Booya ^Bazooka 21:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I replied at Talk:Don't repeat yourself. PhilipR 22:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ottawa flag.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ottawa flag.svg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Inkscape

How do you convert images in Inkscape without corrupting the file? I've converted Image:Zhongwen.png to commons:Image:Zhongwen.svg, but the image disappeared. (I know that you can convert files because of your successful Image:Metallic bond Cu.svg.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any special method — all of my svg conversions have been manual tracings. Since Image:Zhongwen.svg is plain black and white, though, I just used Inkscape's "Path -> Trace bitmap" feature, on the default settings, and its automatic tracer worked fine. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 20:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Then how do you do color images? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I do everything manually. Just import the bitmap, redraw it using paths and objects overtop of it, then delete the bitmap. Not really sure what to tell you... there's no magic wand, for the most part. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 20:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, should you save the file as plain SVG or Inkscape SVG? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. You bring up a good question with this one, and I don't know. I guess I've always been using Inkscape SVG, because that's the default, and I've never even noticed that was an option. I'm guessing "plain" SVG would be best, but I really don't know what the difference is. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 20:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've uploaded commons:Image:Benzyl alcohol.svg (from commons:Image:Benzyl alcohol.png. However, it doesn't show up on the image description page nor when it's used; it's only there when you click on the link directly to the image itself. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It may be unable to render the image because you've left the link to the original bitmap in it; try deleting that and uploading again. Keep in mind that when you include an imported raster, it only stores a link to the image, and doesn't embed it in the file - so it may render on you local machine, but not on MediaWiki. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 21:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

On that sort of image, I wouldn't recommend an autotrace like that - since it's only lines and text, you can create a much cleaner (and smaller filesize) image by drawing it yourself with straight lines and text. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 21:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

So how did you convert Zhongwen from PNG to SVG (list all steps)? I think it would be a lot simpler to just trace the bitmap and save. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Zhongwen is the only image I've ever converted using trace bitmap — in fact, it's the first time I've ever tried using that tool. Yes, that's all I did on that one, trace and save (and remember to delete the bitmap, because Inkscape leaves it in the background after you trace). But it rarely works well. True, I suppose you will end up with an image that scales better than a raster would. However, remember that one of the major purposes of converting to a vector format is to allow others to easily edit the image; if, for example, the image has text which consists of svg paths, rather than a genuine text field which is easily editable just by typing, the conversion has accomplished little in this regard. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 02:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Post signing

Welcome to Wikipedia. When you talk on discussion pages, please sign your name by adding ~~~~ to the end of your post — this makes it much easier to tell who said what. Cheers ~ Booya ^Bazooka 06:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

hey!! thnks for the advise. i'll use it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tulika 99 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 3 July 2006

Inkscape again

It appears that all of your conversions from raster to SVG are "picture perfect", identical to the original image. How do you make images like Image:USDA organic seal.svg manually (not through "Trace Bitmap")? Thanks for replying. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks— I try. I open the original image in Inkscape, and trace overtop of it (it sometimes helps to first lower the raster's opacity in the Fill and Stroke dialog). Most of the tracing is done by creating paths with the Bezier curves tool (shift+f6). It has just taken some practice and careful precision. Lately I've been using guidelines to get more precise point alignments (see Document properties, Snap tab for options on snapping to guides). (Note that everything I've mentioned about Inkscape is referring to the latest version, .44) Hope this fulfills what you're asking... let me know if you need anything else. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 23:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Where can I get a plugin to allow Firefox to be SVG-compatible? (I can upload SVG files but can't download them.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I downloaded anything... as far as I know, Firefox has native SVG support (as of 1.5.0.4, anyway). MediaWiki's rendering looks better than Firefox's, though; I think mostly because Firefox doesn't do much anti-aliasing. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 17:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Newbery Medal succession boxes

I rather like that idea. Joyous! | Talk 16:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm going to go and make a little emergency stub for all of the uncreated articles, so you'll have a real page to link to for each one. Joyous! | Talk 17:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Every title now has at least a one-sentence article, thanks to the wonders of cut-and-paste. Joyous! | Talk 18:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Two liters

Nice work on Two-liter bottle - you really kicked that article into shape. Do you have any sources to cite for the information you added? I think the history and recycling sections could use some references. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 06:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The part about the recycling comes from conversations with engineers I knew when I worked at a certain film company. If that's too sketchy, go ahead and yank it out. The date of 1970 came from the pepsico website (I wasn't clear on if they were talking about plastic or glass) and the 3-liter information came from a new york times article and a 1998 university of alabama press release mentioning the inventor. If you have any tips for citing, please let me know. I keep hearing about it but I'm not sure exactly how it works. Thanks! --Xrblsnggt 02:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up just a little, but it looks good. Thanks. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 03:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Forums as External links

I noticed your edit summary at Orthotics ("revert - forum on podiatry with 132 users is not an appropriate external link"), and thought I should mention that, under WP:EL, forums are a no-no regardless of the number of users. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 17:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

True, although that page notes an exception "where the website is of a particularly high standard" - I can envision a particularly high-quality resource in forum format. Just pointing out that this was definitely not such a quality resource. Thanks for the link, though - there are always more style guides that I haven't read yet! ~ Booya ^Bazooka 19:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: your note on Lolita July 5

Lolita isn't by any means the only object of Humbert's pedophilia. He talks at length about lusting over groups of schoolgirls in general, and (famously!) coins the word "nymphet" for the entire class of children to whom he is attracted. In one scene, he becomes so excited by the sight of the bare bent neck of one of Lolita's classmates that he pays Lolita 65 cents to furtively satisfy him at the back of the classroom while he stares at the other girl. The word Humbert uses to describe himself is "nympholept," as close a synonym to "pedophile" as makes no difference. --Dybryd

Heh, apologies. That's what I get for just watching the movie. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 18:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

ISBN's

Can you point me to where the decision was to not use the {{ISBN}} tag? Thank you. -- Avi 19:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found it, thanks. -- Avi 19:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice job

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your tireless work with the Newbery Medal winners. Joyous!

Ha

I just read this AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clarity_Systems because it was on the pump. I like the comment made. That's it. Have a good day. Kevin_b_er 07:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image:Climbing-stub.saa.gif

Started at WP:VPT

The File Links list for Image:Climbing-stub.saa.gif still contains some articles from which it was removed yesterday. Is there a way to force an update? ~ Booya ^Bazooka 17:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The job queue is pretty low (see Special:Statistics) so it should be gone pretty quick. You sure it was removed from all the pages listed there? It is still part of {{Template:Climbingbio-stub}}. --Splarka (rant) 07:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't; Check Template:Climbing-bio-stub. It got replaced with the svg version, now two days ago. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 17:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.... then it seems to be because that template is actually a redirect to another template. This is apparently fooling the job queue in the image links department. What you can do is null edit all those articles. However, since that involves editing them anyway, you might as well change the template tags to the proper link like this. I'll leave a note on your talk page. --Splarka (rant) 00:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Re: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Updating_an_image.27s_File_Links_list, you'll apparently need to null edit these (or just change the template to prevent it happening again ^_^):

edit edit Hans Florine edit Jim Whittaker edit Laurie Skreslet edit Simon Yates (mountaineer) edit Dougal Haston edit Karl Blodig edit Hans Dülfer edit Gaston Rébuffat edit Heidi Zimmer edit Lou Whittaker edit George Polley edit Jean-Christophe Lafaille edit Fred Rouhling edit Juan Oiarzabal edit Marty Hoey edit Yuji Hirayama edit Josune Bereziartu edit Tommy Caldwell edit Lino Lacedelli edit Achille Compagnoni edit Don Whillans edit Hamish MacInnes edit Warren J. Harding edit Pemba Dorjie edit Fritz Moravec edit Karl Prusik edit Marie Paradis edit Jess Roskelley edit Harry Gardiner edit Kelvin Kent (mountaineer) edit John Harlin (mountaineer) edit Patrick Morrow edit Ramón Julián Puigblanque edit Barbara Washburn edit Marco Siffredi edit Matthias Zurbriggen edit James Whittaker

(not all might contain the template, I lazily grabbed the list from the file list on the image) --Splarka (rant) 00:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Signature button

I'm not sure what you're referring to it not being there? the image I put up for it is there, and plain as day its right there above my edit window.--Crossmr 06:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The image you uploaded is there, but as far as I can tell, MediaWiki doesn't use it anymore. Not in Monobook, at least. The signature link says "Sign your name: --~~~~". ~ Booya ^Bazooka 06:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind, I see - I thought it had been done away with in the most recent change to links below the edit box, when actually I just have the edit toolbar turned off in my own preferences. Still, I would very much recommend leaving that bit out, because it will only confuse users who don't use the edit toolbar. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 06:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Its on by default as far as I know, and as such new users would see it. Users who know enough to turn it off probably won't have this template left on their page. Heck i've been here since April and I wasn't even aware you could turn it off.--Crossmr 06:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

True, probably not... but why risk it, when the "sign your name" link is more intuitive than the abstract sig depiction anyway? ~ Booya ^Bazooka 06:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

risk it? I find it a lot quicker to click that then type two dashes and four tildes. I guess if no one else does it can be removed.--Crossmr 06:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no object to mentioning the click-option. But there are two things you can click: The image above the edit box, and the text below it. The image is only available if you have the toolbar turned on, whereas the text is always there regardless. So why would you pick the image? ~ Booya ^Bazooka 06:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:ReductionVCtoDS.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:ReductionVCtoDS.svg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, OrphanBot. Where would I be without you? In copyrighters' prison, that's where. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 16:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup taskforce

I added the article WiMAX to your desk. Please look at it and either accept it or let me know and I'll reassign it. Thank you. RJFJR 16:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

DCSki

Thanks for cleaning up the DCSki article. It was a bit long-winded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnfmh (talk • contribs) 16:16, 25 July 2006

DES

Thank you for your comments at Talk:Drug-eluting stent. I have tried to rewrite parts of the article to make it more accessible to laypeople. If you have time, I would appreciate if you could take another look and let me know where I could improve. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! I really appreciate the feedback; it's nice to know I'm doing something right. And no one's ever called me a talented fox writer before! This one's going on the user page. Thanks for helping me to keep the article accessible; it's an essential skill for any doctor, and if you have any further suggestions or comments, I'll be happy to hear them. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Stub Images

Can you explain what you meant on Template talk:Royal-stub? I don't understand how an image can have a particularly high server cost. The rendered file sizes are just about the same, and as far as I'm aware, the SVG only get rendered once, so there's not much extra processing cost there... ~ Booya ^Bazooka 01:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. 09:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have little information about how real the size problem currently is, but I prefer to be on the safe side. Around one year ago, WP:WSS got a few comments from one of the server guys claiming that his servers were overworked, so for a while we removed all stub images completely. Since we restored them, WP:WSS has generally tried to use lighter images, and I just noticed that the black and white image was very light in this context. I'm not into the technical side this issue myself, unfortunately, but the size issue is a shame since Commons:Category:Crowns has many fine images. Unfortunately, this is all I know about this issue. Regards. Valentinian ^(talk) 09:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I found the comment to which you refer, but no mention of specific images being particularly bad. I've placed the question on WP:VPT. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 14:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. AFAIK WP:WSS never received any posts about what would be an appropriate size of a stub image. The image server was a definite problem some months ago, but I don't know if this is still the case, so let's hope that we can get some more information on this one. Regards. Valentinian ^(talk) 16:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Says cesarb on the Pump: "a large stub image has the same load on the servers as a small stub image". Regarding the royalty stub, I do agree with your revert, as the red crown I picked looks rather ugly when thumbnailed. Still, I wouldn't be worried about using a large image. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 19:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me! Since so few of us at WP:WSS are techies, we'd figured that the reverse was the case, so we generally avoid large images. To get back to the crowns, that must also mean that e.g. the .svg of St. Edward's crown would also be a possibility. The only problem with this and other images is that they might be too easily identified with one particular country. Btw, the only reason I ever used the chesspiece in the first place was that I needed a small image very quickly since the template's original image had been overwritten by a Commons image of a painting with the same name. The current image is a *lot* better than the chesspiece, but by all means feel free to make more experiments - I'm just not a big fan of Navarre's crown thumbnailed :) Thanks for your help again. Valentinian ^(talk) 21:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Split comment

Can you explain the cryptic comment you made in Syriana: "Split film/book article intentional - Please do not remove this comment"? What split is this referring to, and why is this in the External links section instead of on a talk page? ~ Booya ^Bazooka 22:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

For your use of my favorite icons and a lovely color scheme & layout, you are presented with the Excellent User Page Award. Cheers! ♥ Her Pegship♥ 00:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Greetings! The <!--Split intentional--> comment is part of a project I'm working on, to separate film and book articles. The automated bot that finds combined articles skips over any article that has that hidden comment in the text, even if it has certain of our "stop words" in the article. Hope this makes sense. Cheers, ♥ Her Pegship♥ 00:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - Still bugs me, though. I've posted a note on the project talk page. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 01:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

E for effort

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article E for effort, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:E for effort. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 13:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

disambiguation pages

• (regarding I Remember (disambiguation)) On disambiguation pages, please observe the rule of one link per entry per Disambiguation Manual of Style. Thank you.--Hraefen ^Talk 16:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Does this rule apply strictly when Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the subject, though? The policy mostly makes sense, but in the case of the I remember song, a user could aptly be directed to either Damien Rice or O... so why not link both? ~ Booya ^Bazooka 16:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Linking to Damien Rice would be fine if O did not exist, and this method is sometimes used. But if the album exists, that's where the song is, and the album always contains a link back to the artist. The overarching idea is that the link should be as specific as possible and that once the reader uses it, any info that could have been linked on the disambig page is at the most specific link Readers should not have to debate which link is the easiest to find whatever term/concept/song etc. is disambiguated.--Hraefen ^Talk 17:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

John Metcalf (composer)

Booyabazooka, why did you edit the link on this page? I gave the exact title of the website linked to, why change it?

I'm happy that you took a look at the page so soon after its creation, but I don't understand your reasoning. —WebDrake 19:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It was just a trivial edit... I removed that bit of text because it doesn't really help describe the link. In a citation, if that site were being used as a reference, I would probably want to include its full title; but as an external link, I'd rather see text that helps indicate what the link contains. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 22:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Punctuation

In your edit notes for OSI model you state "Also moving puncuation outside of quotation marks."

This is incorrect in the English language. All punctuation should be inside quotation marks. --OSUKid7 00:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That's what I was taught in school as well, but please read the Wikipedia style guide. We only put punctuation inside the quotation marks if it follows naturally as part of the quotation; most of the time, it goes on the outside. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 04:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Abortion stub

I'm not sure I've found the commentary to which you refer on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abortion to explain your revert on abortion-stub. I find it interesting that you noted, in discussion of a userbox, that the image should not "suggest that abortion is solely an ethical topic." I agree entirely; the graphic should not be about the debate. The scales graphic is about nothing but the debate. It has nothing to do with abortion itself. The fetus graphic seems to fit perfectly without any politics at all. Abortion is an act upon a fetus. What better way to illustrate it than by a fetus? You indicated that the image was POV - but which point of view do you think an image of a fetus supports? We can't depict the actual action of abortion in a stub icon, so we can do the next best thing: depict the subject of the action. It seems very clear-cut and unpoliticized to me. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 06:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I would invite you to participate in WPAbortion if you are concerned with the decisions we are making. We were the ones who discussed and created the abortion-related templates, including the project userbox, stub template, etc. Evidently, you missed a key point in the "Userbox" thread, because my precise response was: "I think the aim was to puporsely avoid politicized symbols, like fetuses or venus glyphs, because these would be divisive and suggest that abortion is solely an ethical topic." In other words, it would frame the issue in a manner preferable to one side, which is precisely what we want to avoid. Romarin agreed with me, and, again, conveyed the importance of neutral images in the thread "POV userbox." -Severa (!!!) 07:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I also find it perplexing that you equate scales with "the debate." Most would associate it with the law. -Severa (!!!) 07:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This is funny, because I find it perplexing that you equate a fetus with the debate. I would think most would associate it with... abortion. I do associate the scales with decision-making, weighing two options against each other. Anyway, what does abortion really have to do with legislature? I certainly did read what you quoted, I agree that neutral images are important, and I believe I responded to it specifically: I believe that the fetus image is neutral. How is it politicized and divisive? Which side of the debate does it favor? ~ Booya ^Bazooka 15:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"What does abortion have to do with legislature?" Quite a lot. But if abortion is truly just an ideological balancing act, as you suggest, then the pro-choicer will place more emphasis in a woman's right to choose, while the pro-lifer will place more on the right to life of the fetus. Choose an image representative of either and you preferentially frame the issue, as if to say, "X is more important here than Y"— which isn't NPOV. -Severa (!!!) 00:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The mere fact that there is legislation regarding abortion does not mean that abortion is solely a legal issue. Just about everything can be said to have quite a lot to do with law. I'm truly confused as to why you said "if abortion is truly just an ideological balancing act, as you suggest". That's not what I suggest at all. I've been trying to convince you precisely of the opposite. The balancing act (as represented by the scales) should be ignored in this representation; we're not trying to focus on the debate, we're trying to focus on abortion. And abortion is the act of aborting a fetus. A depiction of a fetus doesn't mean that the fetus is important or has rights. It's just a depiction of a fetus. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 01:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm moving this discussion to WikiProject Abortion now... ~ Booya ^Bazooka 01:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Your userpage

Well, in addition to the barnstar which you were given for it...may I tell you that it looks very nice :P ? Because of the huge amount of inspiration that kept glowing of it, I modeled my userpage after it. I hope you'll like it.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 21:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Anti-aliasing.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Anti-aliasing.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 16:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Schwartzian Transform

Deleting the Perl/Python/Ruby source code in the article was just plain crazy and leaves the article with no context for or history of the term, and almost no practical use to readers. Can you please explain in the talk page why you did that. The term "Schwartzian Transform" has a specific origin and history that needs to be discussed in the article. Joseph N Hall 09:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Schwartzian transform ~ Booya ^Bazooka 18:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Mergist-logo.png

I was wondering if you could make an SVG version of this logo that has square corners. I was trying to replace the original PNG with the new SVG that you made, but one user said that he didn't like the rounded corners [1]. Hbdragon88 03:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a compromise: I made the corners significantly less round. I'll ask him about it. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 04:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the rounding in Image:Mergist-logo.svg was a bit much, so I've reduced it; perhaps it may be more to your liking now? Let me know if you have any further objections... ~ Booya ^Bazooka 05:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I still prefer the png. Dunno why. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you figure out why, do let me know. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 07:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

ReductionVCtoDS.png

good working improving this fig —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heliobomfim (talk • contribs) 23:31, 16 September 2006

why revert crapulence?

I made a legitimate change to crap. Why did you revert? 64.229.144.36 23:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I initially reverted because it looked like another useless, silly addition (people like to add any made-up crap-related word that they can think of). Although now I see that "crapulence" is a legitimate word, it still doesn't seem to have arose as a derivative of crap. Rather, the etymology points to crapula, in regards to excessive eating or drinking. It doesn't belong in a section about slang usages of "crap". ~ Booya ^Bazooka 15:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

OK! I had a laugh when I saw my mistake. It has a great etymology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.8.72 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 24 September 2006

Image:Water_molecule.svg

Hey Booyabazooka, is this image hand-drawn? I've been looking for a molecule renderer which outputs SVG for ages now. --Dschwen 08:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, hand-drawn. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 15:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Sign bit Google Scholar Google Secure Access Google Directory Barkeater Lake Poisoned Berlekamp-Massey algorithm Google PC Larrikinism William R. Brody Newsquest Google juice Google Toolbar Serializer Windows Live Local Lophophore When I Am King Osibisa Bacon butty

Cleanup High-level design Google and privacy issues List of search engines Merge Firebomb Googlability Single precision Add Sources School prank Scroogle NDGA Wikify Corporation for Education Network Initiatives in California Shatrughan Sinha Directory enabled networking Expand Koppers One Laptop per Child Prince (musician)

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 12:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Floating point page

The page floating point needs expert attention, and such experts are extremely rare. Based on your past contributions in this or related fields, I wonder if you could take a look. William Ackerman 22:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Trillionth (?) iteration of this simple idea.... (sigh)

On Wikipedia, TeX often looks very good when "displayed" and very very bad when inline. Also, variables (but NOT digits and NOT punctuation) in non-TeX math notation should be italicized. Michael Hardy 20:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If you typeset math by hand, it will not look as good as is possible when exporting to for example PDF, or if viewing with a browser supporting MathML. To make simple formulas show as HTML, go to my preferences → Math, and choose "HTML if possible or else PNG". Simple formula will then look good inline. Klem fra Nils Grimsmo 21:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what the problem is with plaintext — in the Max-flow min-cut theorem article, nearly all of the math tags I replaced were not "formulas", but all very simple variable names and expressions such as T and f ≤ c0. The only thing that the TeX rendering does is produce larger text that doesn't fit with the rest of the line. Unless there's a particular reason such as complicated syntax, it doesn't make sense to render the math-related text any differently. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 03:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do you want to keep "Always render PNG" (which is what I guess you use)? Remember that the default is "HTML if very simple or else PNG", and that this is what new and unregistered users see. Lets say you make for example a table which should look like

Hepp:	$a=b\,$
Hopp:	$c=\sum _{i=1}^{n}d$

If you just type in the formulae, it will look something like

Hepp:	a=b
Hopp:	$c=\sum _{i=1}^{n}d$

to new users. I think this looks rather silly. I for one would not remember to always check what things looked like with the default setting if I did not use it myself.

Also, I do not think it is complicated syntax. I find it much easier to read <math>c_f(u,v)</math> than ''c''_''f''(''u'', ''v''). It is also easy to miss details when you are doing the mark-up by hand. You should have to worry about typesetting when writing math, you should just write it. (You missed a few spots when you changed the mark-up.) I appreciate you desire for wanting to make Wikipedia look good, but if you didn't change your WP math display preferences, you wouldn't have to go around changing all these pages :)

See also the arguments in Help:Formula#TeX_vs_HTML.

From Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_Wikipedia_article_on_Mathematics#Typesetting_of_mathematical_formulas:

• Having LaTeX-based formulas in-line which render as PNG under the default user settings, as above, is generally discouraged, ...
• If you plan on editing LaTeX formulas, it is helpful if you leave your preference settings (link in the upper right corner of this page, underneath your user name) in the "rendering math" section at the default "HTML if very simple or else PNG"; that way, you'll see the page like most users will see it.
• Either form is acceptable, but do not change one form to the other in other people's writing. They are likely to get annoyed since this seems to be a highly emotional issue. Changing to make an entire article consistent is acceptable.

Hope we find an understanding! Klem fra Nils Grimsmo 07:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I had somewhat ignored your previous comment regarding the math-display preference because I do not remember changing it from the default (perhaps always-png was default when I registered years ago?), but now I see what you're talking about. Using the math tag makes sense, since it leaves the rendering style up to user preference. Thanks for being patient with me :D ~ Booya ^Bazooka 21:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice working with you, Booyabazooka. Thank you for your other great contributions! Klem fra Nils Grimsmo 08:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ayyavazhi image

Hai friend, I need a help. Please see here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.1.210.223 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 5 November 2006

Rebecca Cummings

Booyabazooka, You have previously edited the Rebecca Cummings article. The article has been put up for deletion. I would like your unbiased input on the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Cummings.

She may not be the most notable person on Wikipedia but she fits the notability criteria from the Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors). Her notability is listed in her article and restated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Cummings.

Thanks for your input!--HeartThrobs 22:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

About your deletion requests on commons..

Hello, you've marked this picture (and few others) as a duplicate/s. Could you please replace it\them on all (or few) projects it\they is\are used in? Thanks in advance, -- odder 14:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Petersen_graph_3-coloring.svg

The 3-coloring of the Petersen graph displayed in Image:Petersen_graph_3-coloring.svg shows two incident blue nodes (in the inner ring), so is not a proper 3-coloring. I've uploaded a fixed version to the Commons, Image:Petersen_graph_3-coloring fixed.svg. My account on the Commons is too new to move the file to the right spot. Would you be willing to do it instead? Michael Slone (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yikes, thanks for pointing out that glaring error. It is fixed. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 18:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)